Addendum*

Recommendations 22

• R1
  It is recommended that this report serve as the Department of Planning and Building's response to the Grand Jury Report on the Countywide Transfer of Development Credit (TDC) Program. 2. It is the Planning and Building Department's recommendation that the Board of Supervisors schedule this response to the Grand Jury at the same time as the discussion of the Transfer of Development Credit Issue Paper scheduled for May 15, 2001, and provide staff with direction on any amendments to the program based on that review, that the countywide program continue to apply until such time as communities or special focus areas come forward with their own community based programs, as the Nipomo Area Advisory Council voted to do on March 9, 2001.
• R2
  4: The county should expand and develop dedicated funding sources to provide additional planning and environmental staff and related resources by fully staffing the Planning Department to assure all plans are up to date and environmental processes are fully supported. Department Response: This recommendation requires further analysis. Discussion: The Department will propose staffing needs as part of the budget planning process for FY2002/03. See the discussion in Recommendation 2.1 above. Scope and Parameters of Further Analysis or Study: Possible funding options need to be explored before additional staffing recommendations can be made. This analysis will be carried out and recommendations made as a part of the Department's proposed FY2002/03 budget. Grand Jury Recommendation 2.5: The county should expand and develop dedicated funding sources to provide additional planning and environmental staff and related resources by adding sufficient staff to allow adequate understanding and enforcement of mitigation requirements. Department Response: This recommendation has not yet been implemented, but could be implemented in the future, within two years. Discussion: Background: San Luis Obispo County approves approximately 180 environmental documents each year that include mitigation measures to reduce or offset environmental impacts. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the adoption and implementation of a mitigation monitoring and reporting program when projects are approved with mitigation measures. Currently, of these approximate 180 projects, effective mitigation monitoring is conducted on approximately 20%. This effort is focused on the larger sized projects and typically utilizes consultants under county contracts, with the costs being borne by the individual applicants. Although spread among several environmental specialists, the staff time involved equates to approximately one third of a full-time position. However, this leaves 80% of the projects without any form of mitigation monitoring. Issues: The Department of Planning and Building has made several process changes in an effort to address this issue. A concerted effort to generate the needed staff time through new efficiencies in the process has been fully implemented. The Department uses "standard" mitigation measures whenever possible, writes all mitigation measures in language adequate for adoption as conditions of approval, and cross trains all staff in the planning and environmental sections to increase staff efficiency and effectiveness. However, there has been an increase in the number and complexity of projects that both complete the review process and proceeds to construction. This has required a focusing of efforts on timely initial processing in order to comply with state-mandated time frames. Therefore, the Department has not been able to assign staff to developing and implementing an adequate mitigation monitoring program. As a result, the County's current mitigation monitoring and reporting program is minimal. Conclusions/Recommendations: The need for mitigation monitoring positions in the Planning Department stems from: • Legal requirements as contained in CEQA; • A desire to provide more cost-effective service to the public by developing mitigation approaches that ensure the greatest degree of success with the least overall cost; and • The need to document accountability to other agencies and the public with respect to the implementation and effectiveness of environmental mitigation measures. An effective mitigation monitoring program is also needed to accomplish the following goals of the Department of Planning and Building: • Conserve natural resources to promote a healthy environment. • Maintain high quality standards in the application of environmental laws in San Luis Obispo County (Strategic Plan). • Improve internal and external customer service (Strategic Plan). • Provide a balanced approach that considers environmental issues in design and development of projects (Strategic Plan). Budget and Staffing Implications: A minimum mitigation monitoring and reporting program would consist of two environmental resource specialists and an administrative clerk. The environmental resource specialists would be assigned to the geographic planning teams and would be responsible for ensuring compliance with Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code (i.e., CEQA), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting. This would be accomplished primarily by confirming proper implementation of required mitigation measures before, during, and after project construction. The environmental resource specialists would consult with applicants, staff and other agencies to continuously monitor mitigation effectiveness in order to develop better and more consistent mitigation approaches. The administrative clerk would function as an assistant to the environmental resource specialists, tracking projects for inspections, coordinating, field monitoring, and data entry. A new mitigation monitoring fee would need to be instituted in order to partially offset the increased costs associated with the Response to April 27, 2001, Grand Jury Report June 11, 2001 program. On larger projects, real-time billing could be instituted so that the applicant bears the full cost of the mitigation monitoring. Grand Jury Recommendation 3.1: The county mitigation processes and procedures should be strengthened to provide for an extensive public airing of environmental issues prior to the issuance of a negative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration, that is consistent with the intent of CEQA and which is uniform for all projects. Department Response: This recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented through the ongoing training program for advisory councils. Discussion: Background: In the current process, new projects subject to environmental review are referred to the appropriate advisory council for review and comment as soon as an application is received by the Planning Department. An advisory council's early comments are considered throughout the planning and environmental evaluations of the project. CEQA provides that public notice and an opportunity for review and comment by the public and other agencies occur after the initial study is completed and a proposed negative declaration has been prepared. Since the statutory review period for a proposed negative declaration is only 20 or in some cases 30 days, it is often difficult for an advisory council to review and comment fully on the environmental document within the legal public review time frame. Issues: In some cases, early review by an advisory council is limited by a lack of project-specific information regarding potential environmental effects, that is, technical reports addressing specific environmental issue areas are often not complete at the time an application is made to the County and the initial referral to the advisory council is made. In other cases, especially once a proposed negative declaration has been issued, advisory council agendas and meeting times often do not provide an opportunity for the council to review the project and make timely comments. However, the County is under strict legal time frames to make critical decisions on proposed projects. State law provides 30 days after initial project submittal to notify an applicant of any additional information needs. The decision to prepare an EIR or negative declaration is then to be made after project acceptance for processing. Final decisions on most projects must be made , including a full appeal process. Therefore, the opportunity to add additional public review times to projects in any format is extremely limited. Conclusions/Recommendations: Additional information about the opportunities to provide comments on projects needs to be distributed to advisory councils and the public. Staff has recently learned that some advisory councils were not aware that the initial project referral from the Planning Department included an opportunity to comment on environmental issues, including the scope of the initial study. Further, it should be emphasized that the negative declaration attached to staff reports and included in the public hearing notice is a proposed environmental finding that is not final until a decision has been made on the project. It is appropriate to provide comments on proposed environmental documents up to and including at the public hearing. Budget and Staffing Implications: Additional training and information for advisory councils is already included in the Department's Strategic Plan and implementation is already underway. We expect implementation of this recommendation will only have minimal budget and staffing implications. Grand Jury Recommendation 3.2: The county mitigation processes and procedures should be strengthened to require that staff expand the negative declaration checklist used in reviewing projects potentially subject to CEQA by attaching, and placing in a publicly-available project file (possibly on a website), a detailed statement in plain language, of the reasons staff conclude that (a) the project will not, with reasonable certainty, adversely impact the environment in any significant way and (b) that the cumulative effect of the project, together with like projects, will not, with reasonable certainty, adversely impact the environment in any significant way. Department Response: The Department will consider this in FY 2002-03 budget request. Discussion: Background: CEQA provides that in the absence of a fair argument that a project could have a significant effect on the environment, the appropriate environmental document is a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration. A summary of the information used to reach these conclusions is compiled in the project's initial study and made a part of the project's staff report. Issues: Documenting conclusions in plain language as well as explaining the magnitude of potential impacts along with the "how" and "why" of proposed mitigation measures are key concepts in the adequate and successful implementation of CEQA. Also, careful attention to cumulative impacts is required. Conclusions/Recommendations: The Department is already working to incorporate changes to the initial study checklist into the County's CEQA process. Along with a renewed emphasis on staff training, this effort should result in more comprehensive documentation of the initial studies prepared for development projects. Budget and Staffing Implications: Implementation of this recommendation will require 4-8 hours of staff time per initial study. Grand Jury Recommendation 3.3: The County mitigation processes and procedures should be strengthened to require that staff clearly identify projects recommended for approval on the basis of negative declarations on all agendas as such and provide full and adequate notice of such projects and of the proposed negative declaration treatment to all interested parties, including (but not necessarily limited to) area advisory councils and newspapers of general circulation, not less than 30 days in advance of any consideration by a County agency. Department Response: The department will consider these additional staffing needs for the fiscal year 2002/2003 budget. Discussion: Background: The minimum public notice specified in state law for negative declarations and mitigated negative declarations includes a 20- or 30-day public review period (30 days for projects that require state agency review; 20 days for all others), publishing the notice of the proposed negative declaration in a newspaper of general circulation in the area where the project is proposed, and mailing the notice to any state agency with jurisdiction over the projects, as well as to any person or group who has previously requested the notice for a particular project. County processes currently comply with these requirements. In addition, early notice of a proposed negative declarations is posted in the Planning and Building Department and is listed on the weekly Board of Supervisors' agenda (which is posted on the County's website). This "courtesy" notice, which is mandated by the County's local CEQA Guidelines, is given well in advance of the notice specified in state law. Additional notice is given by combining the notice of a proposed negative declaration with the public hearing notice mandated by planning law. Through this process, notice of a proposed negative declaration is mailed to all landowners within 300 feet of any project site. As a matter of policy, these notices are also mailed to appropriate advisory councils. Issues: At present, the County's methods and processes for noticing proposed negative declarations far exceed the requirements of state law. However, there are opportunities to include additional "flags" in the process so that interested persons can more easily participate in the process. Inclusions of projected hearing dates and staff contacts in the courtesy notice may make that early notice more useful. Inclusion of the environmental document type in the agenda listings for the Subdivision Review Board, Minor Use Permit, and Planning Commission Hearings could also provide useful information, especially to the degree that these agendas are posted on the Department's website. Conclusions/Recommendations: The ability of the public to participate in the CEQA process, although tightly defined and limited by state law, is emphasized as a key component of the County's environmental review process. Noticing procedures should be reviewed in order to identify any additional cost-effective measures that could be taken to enhance public participation. Budget and Staffing Implications: Additional staff time to implement these changes to the notice process identified above would amount to 1-5 hours per project. Given the number of projects involved, this would incrementally increase staffing needs. A bigger issue is the question of how well the Department is able to meet current requirements with existing staffing. Although basically the same, noticing requirements do vary on a project-by-project basis. The one staff person best able to identify the "special" noticing requirements of any project is the assigned staff project manager. Given the range of special requirements that may apply, the ability of administrative staff or automated systems to assist in this effort is limited, leaving the task to the project manager. Grand Jury Recommendation 3.4: The county mitigation processes and procedures should be strengthened. A county procedure should be written to implement these requirements. Department Response: This recommendation has not yet been implemented, but could be implemented in the future, within two years. Discussion: Background: The County CEQA Guidelines specify general requirements, along with those in state law, but do not describe the process in detail with reference to internal procedures. Response to April 27, 2001, Grand Jury Report June 11, 2001 Issues: None. Conclusions/Recommendations: A policies and procedures manual describing the internal processes used by the Department to implement CEQA should be prepared. Budget and Staffing Implications: Staff hours equivalent to a half staff year would have to be dedicated to this task. Grand Jury Recommendation 4.1 and 4.2: The county should reevaluate recent land use project/CEQA processing decisions in the broad context of public stewardship responsibilities, especially in view of developing an enhanced understanding of cumulative effects by: ● Assuring that the EIR supporting the possible amendments to the Growth Management Ordinance is not piecemealed, rather it should consider a wide range of alternatives that apply countywide. The scope should be developed in cooperation with the local communities and the effort conducted with extensive public participation. Consideration should be given to amending RFP PS-704 to be responsive to the discussion on of this report (Grand Jury Report). ● Conducting a comprehensive planning and environmental analysis for the eight general plan amendments proposed in the South County Planning Area. Details are given beginning on of this report (Grand Jury Report). Department Response: These recommendations have not yet been implemented, but could be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. Discussion: Background: Although this recommendation references "the broad context of public stewardship," it specifically focuses on processing decisions that were made in regard to the Growth Management Ordinance. It is the opinion of the Grand Jury that the work scope of the EIR being prepared to address the Growth Management Ordinance should address a wide range of alternatives that apply countywide and should include extensive public participation. Also as a part of this recommendation, reference is made to pages 15 and 16 of the Grand Jury Report which includes a discussion of "piecemealing" in conjunction with review of the Growth Management Ordinance and eight proposed general plan amendments in the South County Planning Area. RFP PS-704 is the Request For Proposal that was prepared by Planning and Building Department staff for the purpose of soliciting proposals from consulting firms to prepare the EIR for proposed amendments to the County's Growth Management Ordinance. As part of the project description, the RFP includes reference to the eight proposed general plan amendments recently authorized for processing by the Board of Supervisors. Issues: For purposes of impact assessment, lead agencies should define projects broadly to ensure a complete analysis of impacts resulting from all reasonably foreseeable projects that will likely change the scope and/or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects. Staff is in the process of soliciting proposals from consultants for the EIR to be prepared on the proposed changes to the Growth Management Ordinance. In order to avoid piecemealing and address cumulative impacts (as defined in the Background Section above), staff is proposing to include as part of the analysis: • The Board of Supervisors' initiated amendments to the Growth Management Ordinance (please see list under Background Section above); • The eight proposed South County General Plan Amendments; and • The 180 "pipeline projects." There is reference in the Grand Jury Report, , to the project description for the EIR as provided in the RFP: "As the project description is currently written it is going to be very difficult to determine what alternatives should be considered and studied." The report goes on to cite a case considered by the County of Inyo, and based on this case, concludes that the EIR will be too confusing if proposed general plan amendments are studied along with amendments to the Growth Management Ordinance. Further, it is stated that this approach will result in incessant shifts among different project descriptions drawing a red herring across the path of public input. By including the above bulleted components as part of an overall analysis, the stated objectives of the Grand Jury will be met by avoiding piecemealing and allowing development of an enhanced understanding of cumulative effects. However, the issues covered in this EIR are complex. It will be a challenge to ensure that the EIR is legally adequate as well as clear and understandable. Conclusions/Recommendations: The preparation of this EIR is a major project which will take approximately one year to complete and require a significant number of staff hours to complete. Staff will work towards ensuring that opportunities for public input are included and that the EIR is comprehensive, clearly written and legally defensible. The Department expects to cover staff costs within the existing budget; however, consultant costs for EIR preparation will need to be allocated by the Board of Supervisors. Grand Jury Recommendation 4.3: The county should reevaluate recent land use project/CEQA processing decisions in the broad context of public stewardship responsibilities, especially in view of developing an enhanced understanding of cumulative effects by developing a work plan to direct the water resource capacity study and preparatory work to enable the study [sic] should be completed in advance of the DWR report, see of this report (Grand Jury Report). Department Response: This recommendation has not yet been implemented. The Grand Jury suggests that it is not necessary to wait until the Department of Water Resources completes its study of Water Resources of the Arroyo Grande - Nipomo Mesa Area before the Planning Department initiates a resource capacity study for the Nipomo Mesa. We agree with the Grand Jury. Before the end of June 2001, the Planning Department will initiate the data gathering portion of the resource capacity study by requesting the service providers provide the necessary historical information about water production and service connections. The remained of the resource capacity study will then be completed upon receipt of the final Department of Water Resources report.
• R3
  The mere appearance of a conflict of interest should be sufficient for the Grand Jury to request separate counsel or for the office of County Counsel to recuse itself from competing commitments or loyalties. The Department defers to the Office of the County Counsel for a response to this recommendation.
• R4
  Future Grand Juries will need funding for outside independent counsel to address the courts if they are to adequately investigate Child Protective Services. The Department defers to the Office of the County Counsel for a response to this recommendation. The Department of Social Services submits that the 2000/2001 Grand Jury missed the opportunity to inform the community of the dramatic changes in Child Welfare Services that are being implemented by the Department. These changes—focusing on a “best practices” approach to service delivery—have produced compelling results that include the following: • A responsive system that investigates more reports than counties much larger than ours. In the sample quarter of April – June 2000, the Department responded in person to 969 referrals of child abuse or neglect while Monterey County, for example, with a population 63% larger than SLO's, responded to only 692. Sonoma's population is 84% larger, but they responded to only 846. San Mateo's population is 198% larger, but they responded to only 968 and San Francisco, with a population over three times that of SLO, responded to only 808 referrals. Children are less likely to remain at-risk of injury or abuse in San Luis Obispo, because we respond to such a high percentage of the reports we receive. • A system in which risk is assessed equitably and consistently. Utilizing the Structured Decision Making model, Social Workers investigate referrals and abide by the findings of that structured assessment. While the system permits a Social Worker to "override" the results, this override occurs in practice less than one-half of one percent of the cases, compared to a 2% rate in all the counties utilizing Structured Decision Making. This demonstrates clearly that Social Workers do not abuse the power of their office. Of the cases investigated by Department staff, only 21% are considered "substantiated"—a rate of substantiation that is exceeded by 51 of California's 58 counties. • A system that focuses on supporting families with the least intrusive intervention. While the filing of a petition in court is necessary in some cases, it should be considered only in those cases where the risk to the child is the greatest and the motivation of the parents to resolve the risk is the least. In keeping with this philosophy, the Department filed petitions on fewer than 4% of the cases for which it received reports of child abuse or neglect. In fact, court petitions have declined each year since 1997 and, in 2000, were at the lowest level since 1988. This trend is hardly consistent with a Department that might be inclined to "abuse its power." • A system that focuses on keeping families intact. When no other services will help to ensure the safety of the child at home, we ask the court to remove the child and authorize placement in a foster home. Because we are committed to supporting families and maintaining them, however, out-of-home placements have been declining each year since 1997. We utilize a number of programs and interagency collaboratives to support families, and these efforts see a "payoff" not only financially but also socially. This trend is hardly consistent with a Department that might be inclined to "abuse its power." By choosing to focus on a handful of complaints that it could not substantiate, and dedicating its efforts to a description of its frustration in being denied wholesale access to sensitive Child Welfare Records, the Grand Jury's report serves to mislead the public. The Department believes that it is the duty of the Grand Jury to investigate and report upon both the bad and the good. They failed to uncover the former, and failed to report the latter. This Page Intentionally Blank COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: DEB HOSSLI County Administrative Office DATE: August 15, 2001 FROM: Office of County Counsel SUBJECT: Response of County Counsel to 2000-2001 Grand Jury Report In accordance with the request of your office and the 2000-2001 Grand Jury, we propose the following response to the Grand Jury's report concerning Child Welfare Services and the role of this department in determining the availability of confidential Child Welfare Services records. RESPONSE OF COUNTY COUNSEL TO 2000-2001 GRAND JURY REPORT The 2000-2001 Report of the Grand Jury has correctly stated that the staff at the Department of Social Services, and particularly the staff of the Child Welfare Services (hereinafter "CWS"; formerly known as Child Protective Services) deal with people at all levels of dysfunction, addiction, emotional instability, economic distress who in some instances are in conflict with the Department over what is best for their child or children. In its report, the Grand Jury makes clear its frustration concerning the inability of the juvenile committee of the Grand Jury to review randomly selected files of the Department of Social Services, CWS Division. The Grand Jury's observation that a conflict of interest exists within the Office of the County Counsel, due to its representation of them and of the Department of Social Services, appears to derive from the issue of access to confidential juvenile information. Therefore, before responding to the specific Findings and Recommendations, we have included a brief overview of that topic. Child Protective Services Response - San Luis Obispo Office of County Counsel DEB HOSSLI Re: Response of County Counsel to 2000-2001 Grand Jury Report August 15, 2001 Confidentiality Issue Due to the sensitivity of the very personal matters which come to the attention of CWS, the access to information contained therein has been tightly regulated by state and federal law. In California, government records regarding children who are physically, sexually, or emotionally abused, being neglected or being exploited are made confidential in order to protect the "privacy rights of the child." (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300.2) Access to confidential juvenile records is controlled by the Welfare & Institutions Code sections 827 and 10850. Section 827(e) defines the term "juvenile case file" and the case of Lorenza P. v. Superior Court (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 767 includes departmental records about a family in that protected category, even if no case has been filed with the Juvenile Court. Section 827(a)(1) lists specifically those 12 categories of persons who may inspect a confidential juvenile file. The Grand Jury is not included on that list. Section 827(a)(1)(M) then provides for inspection by "any other person who may be designated by court order of the judge of the juvenile court upon filing a petition."1 1 The petition referred to in section 827(a)(1)(M) is a printed form provided by the Judicial Council of California, and available at the Office of the Clerk of the Superior Court. Our local Superior Court has established a protocol for the processing of the various requests for inspection. All section 827 petitions are reviewed by the Juvenile Court judicial officer, and if factually sufficient, are then scheduled for a court hearing. After the court hearing at which all interested parties, including the petitioner, may present argument for or against release, the file is reviewed in camera (privately) by the judicial officer and the release, if any, is distributed by the Juvenile Court Clerk. Cautionary language regarding further distribution is included in the order accompanying the release. DEB HOSSLI Re: Response of County Counsel to 2000-2001 Grand Jury Report August 15, 2001 Prior to 1993, when the Grand Jury requested access to confidential juvenile information the members were directed to the 827 petition process. Until that time any Department of Social Services employees brought before the Grand Jury could not discuss the facts of specific cases, but only how cases in general were customarily handled. Repeatedly, successive Grand Juries were not satisfied with this restriction. In 1993, in an attempt to facilitate the investigatory duties of the Grand Jury, a new protocol was negotiated between the Grand Jury and the Department of Social Services. This policy received the approval of the Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court in a Standing Order dated December 20, 1993. A copy of that Standing Order is attached. The 1993 policy called for an identified committee of the Grand Jury to receive special training regarding CWS confidentiality standards. Then when responding to a complaint, if it became necessary to review a specific case file, those specially trained Grand Jury members would be able to meet with the assigned social worker and the supervisor to review the file and ask questions. The Standing Order also addressed in what manner the information would be reported back to the entire Grand Jury. Further, the Standing Order provided the Grand Jury with the remedy of seeking relief from the Juvenile Court if they believed they were improperly being denied access to confidential records. This system appeared to work well, and was frequently utilized after its inception. Then, for a period of several years in the late 1990s, the Department received no requests for information or access to individual case files from any Grand Jury. At the time of the seating of the 2000-2001 Grand Jury, due to the activities of a local citizen's group known as The Real F.A.C.T.S., the Department anticipated that the Grand Jury would again be asked to investigate CWS and therefore arranged for the juvenile committee to DEB HOSSLI Re: Response of County Counsel to 2000-2001 Grand Jury Report August 15, 2001 receive the specialized training. Two training sessions were provided by the Deputies County Counsel representing the agency. During those training sessions the Standing Order protocol was explained. The 2000-2001 juvenile committee members expressed their dissatisfaction with the protocol outlined in the 1993 Standing Order. Their stated reasons were (1) the legal obligation of the Grand Jury to maintain the confidentiality of the complainant, and (2) the perceived opportunity for the social worker to retaliate against the complainant in some way. Therefore, at a meeting on January 11, 2001, attended by members of the Grand Jury's juvenile committee, the Director of the Department of Social Services, other Departmental employees, the Deputy County Counsel representing the Grand Jury and the Deputy County Counsel representing the Department, a different protocol for 2000-2001 was agreed upon. (See attached memo.) In this new arrangement, the social worker would not know that a complaint had been made to the Grand Jury. The file would be obtained from the social worker by the employee of the Department who has the task of investigating complaints.2 This employee is not assigned to the CWS Division. She would then meet with members of the Grand Jury juvenile committee and assist them in their review of the file.3 The file would be returned to the social worker, or to 2 This employee investigates complaints lodged locally and also conducts investigations and provides reports to CA Department of Social Services when complaints are made directly to that agency. Further, it is not unusual for files to be requested from the social worker for internal program reviews. The mere fact that a file was requested by this person would not serve as notice to a social worker that a complaint had been received by the Grand Jury. Because other than the various listed agencies, section 827 limits access to the juvenile case file to the parents or the minor, the Department asked that the Grand Jury juvenile committee satisfy themselves that the complainant was a party to the case rather than a stranger before availing themselves of this confidential process to review a specific file. DEB HOSSLI Re: Response of County Counsel to 2000-2001 Grand Jury Report August 15, 2001 closed files, without notation or comment. This procedure was used twice by the Grand Jury juvenile committee. The Grand Jury of 2000-2001 never made a request of the Juvenile Court for approval for any other type of access to juvenile case records, either through a section 827 petition or a direct written request, nor did they ask their assigned County Counsel for assistance. Without the approval of such a request from the Juvenile Court, the Department was prohibited by law from making any records or files available for inspection, particularly on a random basis. Response to Findings and Recommendations
• R5
  1: The county should evaluate policy decision making by directing staff to prepare a single annual report that contains information about the general plan, CEQA actions, and the capital budget. This composite report should be combined with the RMS annual report. Department Response: This recommendation requires further analysis. Discussion: We agree that a comprehensive annual report summarizing how development activity, changes in status of resources and identified cumulative environmental impacts relate to policies in the General Plan would be a useful planning tool and could lead to more informed capital improvement budget decisions, infrastructure improvements, and land use decisions. Scope and Parameters of Further Analysis or Study: Exactly what the needed information is and how it is reported – by community, planning area, or countywide – would need to be determined. In addition, what CEQA and RMS data would be reported and how it would be used would also need to be developed prior to a final recommended approach to a new substantive annual report. An expanded RMS annual report or a composite report could include information about land use changes occurring during the preceding years. Changes in land use categories could be reported by planning area, as well as countywide. The report could include changes of acreage for all land use categories. It could also include projected changes in buildout as a result of changes in land use designation, expressed as number of dwelling units and population. It is envisioned that this information would be reported by planning area and community, rather on a project-by-project basis. Thus, whenever a change in land use is approved, the acreage, dwelling unit and buildout totals would be adjusted for the affected community and planning area. The report could also include information about the capital improvement program, as previously described in the staff comments to the Grand Jury's Finding o. The Department will develop this new approach and a work program for accomplishing it as a proposal for the Board of Supervisors to consider during FY 2001/2002. Grand Jury Recommendation 5.2: The county should evaluate policy decision making by amending the RMS process to include an annual policy decision on the level of severity. Department Response: Requires further analysis. Implications of the Grand Jury's recommendation are discussed. Alternative recommendations are suggested. Discussion: The recommendation is interpreted to mean that the Board of Supervisors should certify all or most recommended levels of severity at the time the Annual Resource Summary Report and Growth Management Ordinance are considered by the Board. If LOS certification were to take place at this time, recommended actions would go into effect upon certification. Implementing this recommendation would involve changes to the current RMS process. The effect of these changes causes us to question the validity of this approach. The two central concerns are that the role of the Planning Commission in the certification process would be jeopardized and that logistical difficulties would make the recommendation unworkable. Also, there may be other ways to address the concerns of the Grand Jury that do not have such undesirable impacts. Planning Commission involvement in the process of certifying levels of severity: As currently structured, certification of a level of severity is accomplished through a process that includes the following steps: A. The Board of Supervisors directs staff to prepare a Resource Capacity Study; B. The Planning Commission holds a public hearing on the RCS; C. The Board of Supervisors holds a public hearing on the RCS; D. The LOS is certified and actions directed by the Board are implemented. The Planning Commission public hearing is considered an essential part of the certification process. The Resource Management System is part of the Land Use Element of the County General Plan. The primary function of the Planning Commission is to advise the Board of Supervisors on land use matters. However, if the process were revised so that the Board certified all levels of severity at an annual public hearing, the Planning Commission would be eliminated from the process at this point in time. A key issue is the time frame for gathering resource information from service providers and preparing the Annual Report for public distribution. Water production and sewage treatment plant data is typically reported on a "water year" basis, which is the year ending June 30. This standard has been adopted for the Annual Resource Summary Report. Thus, information in the Annual Report is current as of the year ending June 30. Work on the RMS Annual Report begins the first week in July when requests for the current year's data are mailed to service providers. Allowing 45 days for requests to go out and for the receipt of information from service providers, and another 45 days for preparation and distribution, the report could be made available to the public on about the first of October, except for the school information which is generally not available until October. With school data, the report could be made available in mid-October. A public hearing could be scheduled 30 days later, in mid-November. This would give the public time to review the report and prepare for a public hearing. Also, during this review period, the report could be included on the agenda of each of the community advisory councils. The Board of Supervisors would then consider the RMS Annual Report when setting the allowable growth rate for the ensuing calendar year. Logistical difficulty of certifying several levels of severity at a single public hearing: Historically, public hearings dealing with resource capacity studies have been quite lengthy. Because of the potential economic and environmental impacts that would follow from certification and subsequent actions the Board could implement, there tends to be a great deal of public comment on both sides of the issue. Attempting to certify several levels of severity at a single public hearing could be extremely difficult to accomplish. Alternative Recommendations: a. Expand time period for public review prior to the public hearing on the Annual Resource Summary Report / Growth Management Ordinance. The annual public hearing of the Growth Management Ordinance provides the Board of Supervisors with a means of responding quickly to resource issues that can be addressed by establishment of a localized growth limitation. The Board's recent actions regarding Cambria and the Nipomo Mesa are examples. However, the short time between public availability of the Annual Resource Summary Report / Growth Management Ordinance staff report and the subsequent Board of Supervisors public hearing has been criticized on the grounds that it gives the public insufficient time to review the report and prepare for the public hearing. This is a valid criticism. The Planning Department can adjust the production schedule for this report so that it becomes available to the public in October, at least 30 days before the hearing in November. Also, the scope of the Annual Report can be expanded so that it includes more information about land use changes, environmental determinations and capital improvements, as discussed in the response to Recommendation 5.1 above. Provision of a more comprehensive report with more time for public review should enhance the ability of the public to communicate their opinions about resource matters to the Board of Supervisors at the annual public hearing, enabling the Board to take definitive action where there is a clear showing of public support. b. Place greater emphasis on the use of the "advisory memorandum." The RMS process includes provision for an "advisory memorandum" by which the Board of Supervisors is notified of a potential resource issue. The advisory memo includes relevant information available to the Planning Department, but does not include the more detailed information and analysis contained in a Resource Capacity Study. Upon consideration of an advisory memorandum, the Board may implement a menu of "interim" actions prior to the completion of a Resource Capacity Study. These actions would include those listed in Framework for Planning designed to slow the rate at which a resource is being consumed. The Annual Resource Summary Report is considered to be the same as an "advisory memo". It contains the resource data submitted by the various service providers, but not the detailed analysis found in a Resource Capacity Study. The annual report has recently been used to advise the Board about water supply issues in Cambria and the Nipomo Mesa. In these cases, the Annual Report included some preliminary analysis based on draft water studies for the respective areas. In response, the Board enacted growth limits in both areas, using the mechanism of the annual review of the Growth Management Ordinance. Use of the Annual Resource Summary Report as an advisory memorandum could be given greater emphasis through the inclusion of the full range of options available to the Board as interim conservation measures, rather than only those options that can be implemented via Title 26. The interim measures would remain in effect until the completion of a Resource Capacity Study, the Planning Commission public hearing and certification of the Level of Severity by the Board of Supervisors. This is currently within the Board's purview, and no modification of Framework for Planning would be required for its implementation. c. Make the implementation of "interim" conservation measures mandatory. As a variation on the placement of greater emphasis on use of the advisory memorandum, the implementation of resource conservation measures or growth management measures could be made mandatory, rather than optional, as is currently the case. Mandatory measures at each level of severity could be specified in Framework. Following adoption of the interim measures, the resource issue would follow the same process - Resource Capacity Study, Planning Commission and Board certification of the Level of Severity. At the time of certification, the Board would determine whether to leave the interim measures in place, revise them or eliminate them. This approach would require an amendment to Framework for Planning. Budget and Staffing Implications: Staff can implement any of these alternative with existing resources.
• R6
  Provide for a sustainable rate of orderly development within the planned capacities of resources and services and the county's and citizens' financial ability to provide them. Distribution of Land Uses
• R7
  Encourage an urban environment that is an orderly arrangement of buildings, structures and open space appropriate to the size and scale of development for each community.
• R8
  Maintain a distinction between urban and rural development by providing for rural uses outside of urban and village areas which are predominately agriculture, low-intensity recreation, residential and open space uses, which will preserve and enhance the pattern of identifiable communities.
• R9
  Identify important agricultural, natural and other rural areas between cities and communities and work with landowners to maintain their rural character.
• R10
  Encourage the protection of agricultural land for the production of food, fiber, and other agricultural commodities. Phasing of Urban Development
• R11
  Design and maintain a land use pattern and population capacity that is consistent with the capacities of existing public services and facilities, and their programmed expansion where funding has been identified.
• R12
  Encourage the phasing of urban development in a compact manner, first using vacant or underutilized "infill" parcels and lands next to existing development. Residential Land Uses
• R13
  Locate urban residential densities within urban or village reserve lines near employment areas, while protecting residential areas from incompatible and undesirable uses. Commercial and Industrial Land Uses
• R14
  Designate a pattern of strategically located commercial and/or industrial areas compatible with overall land use that is convenient to patrons, realistically related to market demand and the needs of the community, and near areas designated for residential use. Public Services and Facilities
• R15
  Provide additional public resources, services and facilities to serve existing communities in sufficient time to avoid overburdening existing resources, services and facilities.
• R16
  Avoid the use of public resources, services and facilities beyond their renewable capacities, and monitor new development to ensure that its resource demands will not exceed existing and planned capacities or service levels.
• R17
  Finance the cost of additional services and facilities from those who benefit by providing for dedications, in-lieu fees or exactions.
• R18
  Locate new and additional public service facilities on existing public lands where feasible, allowing for sufficient buffers to protect adjacent rural and agricultural areas. Circulation
• R19
  Integrate land use and transportation planning in coordination with cities to ensure that traffic and transportation demands can be safely and adequately accommodated.
• R20
  Design a transportation system that provides safety within feasible economic and technical means, preserves important natural resources and features, promotes the esthetic quality of the region and minimizes adverse environmental changes. Administration
• R21
  Work toward minimizing administrative delays and costs to fee payers in the administration of the Land Use Element. Simplify development review procedures and provide incentives for development to locate where plan policies encourage it to occur.
• R22
  Work closely with cities to provide continuity between city and county land use planning and to achieve common land use goals through reciprocal agreements. Child Protective Services Response - San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors County of San Luis Obispo COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, RM. 370 • SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93408 • (805) 781-5011 TO: GRAND JURY FOREMAN FROM: DEB HOSSLI, PRINCIPAL ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST DATE: SEPTEMBER 17, 2001 DAVID EDGE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR SUBJECT: ADVANCED COPY OF GRAND JURY RESPONSE On June 28, 2001, the Grand Jury issued a report on the subject of Child Protective Services. A consent item will appear on the Board of Supervisors' meeting agenda on September 25, 2001 responding to the Grand Jury's report. The attached Grand Jury report response copy is provided for you in advance of the agenda item appearing on the Board of Supervisors' meeting agenda. Please call me if you have any questions. Thank you. COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL (1) DEPARTMENT Administration (2) MEETING DATE September 25, 2001 (3) CONTACT/PHONE Deb Hossli (805) 781-5014 (4) SUBJECT Board of Supervisors' response to the 2000-01 Grand Jury Report on Child Protective Services (5) SUMMARY OF REQUEST On June 28, 2001, the Grand Jury issued a report on Child Protective Services. In accordance with State law, the Department of Social Services and County Counsel responded to the report and provided a copy of the response to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court within the sixty day time-frame. The Board of Supervisors is now required to provide their response to the Grand Jury Report. This must be completed within ninety days (or by September 26, 2001). Administrative Office staff recommends that the responses prepared by Social Services and County Counsel serve as the Board of Supervisors' response to the report. (6) RECOMMENDED ACTION That the Board approve the response to the Grand Jury Report and forward a copy of the response to the Grand Jury Foreman and the Superior Court Presiding Judge. (7) FUNDING SOURCE(S) N/A (8) CURRENT YEAR COST N/A (9) ANNUAL COST N/A (10) BUDGETED? YES N/A NO (11) OTHER AGENCY/ADVISORY GROUP INVOLVEMENT (LIST): Social Services, County Counsel (12) WILL REQUEST REQUIRE ADDITIONAL STAFF? No Yes, How Many? _____ Permanent _____ Limited Term _____ Contract _____ Temporary Help _____ (13) SUPERVISOR DISTRICT(S) 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, (All) (14) LOCATION_MAP Attached N/A (15) AGENDA PLACEMENT Consent Hearing (Time Est. _____) Presentation Board Business (Time Est. _____) (16) EXECUTED DOCUMENTS Resolutions (Orig + 4 copies) Contracts (Orig + 4 copies) Ordinances (Orig + 4 copies) N/A (17) NEED EXTRA EXECUTED COPIES? Number: _____ Attached N/A (18) APPROPRIATION TRANSFER REQUIRED? Submitted 4/5th's Vote Required N/A (19) ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE REVIEW cic dh received 9/19/01 County of San Luis Obispo COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, RM. 370 • SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93408 • (805) 781-5011 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Deb Hossli, County Administration DH DATE: September 25, 2001 SUBJECT: Board of Supervisors' Response to the 2000-01 Grand Jury Report on Child Protective Services DAVID EDGE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Recommendation: That the Board approve the response to the Grand Jury Report and forward a copy of the response to the Grand Jury Foreman and the Superior Court Presiding Judge.